10395049 (B.P.A.I. Jan. 12, 2011)

Ex Parte Ting

Board of Patent Appeals and InterferencesJan 12, 2011

10395049 (B.P.A.I. Jan. 12, 2011)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE United States Patent and Trademark Office Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS P.O. Box 1450 Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450 www.uspto.gov APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 10/395,049 03/21/2003 David M. T. Ting IPV-006/7304092001 2150 7590 01/12/2011 Bingham McCutchen LLP 2020 K Street, NW Washington, DC 20006 EXAMINER POLTORAK, PIOTR ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2434 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 01/12/2011 PAPER Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding. The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES ____________________ Ex parte DAVID M. T. TING ____________________ Appeal 2009-005793 Application 10/395,049 Technology Center 2400 ____________________ Before: JEAN R. HOMERE, CAROLYN D. THOMAS, and DEBRA K. STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judges STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL1 1 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, or for filing a request for rehearing, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 41.52, begins to run from the “MAIL DATE” (paper delivery mode) or the “NOTIFICATION DATE” (electronic delivery mode) shown on the PTOL-90A cover letter attached to this decision. Appeal 2009-005793 Application 10/395,049 2 Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) (2002) from a final rejection of claims 1-21. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b) (2008). We AFFIRM. Introduction According to Appellants, the invention is a system and method for filtering data and requests during computer system usage. A user profile has an associated alias and may contain data pertaining to content viewing or request type restrictions. User profile data may be used to grant or deny application access, filter specific content for viewing, or filter specific data requests (Spec. 1, [0001]). STATEMENT OF THE CASE Exemplary Claim Claim 1 is an exemplary claim and is reproduced below: 1. A method of controlling access to data provided to a client computer operated by a user, the method comprising the steps of: a. identifying the user; b. supplying, to the client computer, data-restriction information based on the user's identity; c. on the client computer, following retrieval of external data from a server, intercepting operating system instructions related to the display of the external data; and d. restricting execution of the operating system instructions in accordance with the data-restriction information, thereby limiting the display of the retrieved external data. Appeal 2009-005793 Application 10/395,049 3 Prior Art Moshfeghi US 6,476,833 B1 Nov. 5, 2002 Williams Stallings, “Operating Systems Internals and Design Principles”, Fourth Edition, ISBN 0-13-031999-6, Pub. by Prentice- Hall, Inc. NJ (2001 Rejection Claims 1-21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Moshfeghi. GROUPING OF CLAIMS (1) Appellants argue claims 1-3, 5-13, and 15-21 as a group on the basis of claim 1 (App. Br. 6-10). We select independent claim 1 as the representative claim. We will, therefore, treat claims 2, 3, 5-13, and 15-21 as standing or falling with representative claim 1. (2) Appellants argue claims 4 and 12 as a group on the basis of claim 4 (App. Br. 11). We select independent claim 4 as the representative claim. We will, therefore, treat claim 12 as standing or falling with representative claim 4. We accept Appellants’ grouping of the claims. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii). Appeal 2009-005793 Application 10/395,049 4 ISSUE 1 35 U.S.C. § 103(a): claims 1-3, 5-13, and 15-21 Appellants assert their invention is not obvious over Moshfeghi because Moshfeghi’s recognition of unauthorized data would take place at the application level regardless of the operating system (App. Br. 7-9 and Reply Br. 2 and 3). Appellants additionally contend that the Examiner is using hindsight reasoning to characterize the present invention as obvious over Moshfeghi as revealed by the reliance on commercial success not similarity of technologies or function (App. Br. 9 and 10). The Examiner finds that separating different functionalities in computer operation evolved over time (Ans. 20). The Examiner further finds that operating system modules are implemented as software instructions (Ans. 10). The Examiner further finds Moshfeghi teaches or suggests basic operations that must occur and these operations occur at the operating system level (id.). Moreover, the Examiner finds Moshfeghi discloses limiting the display of received external data in accordance with data-restriction information and limiting the display involves using operating system instructions (Ans. 15 and 16). Issue 1: Have Appellants shown the Examiner erred in concluding the present invention as recited in claim 1 and commensurately recited in 10 and 18, is obvious over Moshfeghi? Appeal 2009-005793 Application 10/395,049 5 FINDINGS OF FACT (FF) Moshfeghi Reference (1) Moshfeghi teaches a method and system for controlling browser functionality within the context of a client-server application. The browser functionality is configured according to user profile information. Authorization and access varies depending on the user, as does browser function and network resources. (Abstract). (2) The client application software runs in the end-user devices, is configured according to data descriptive of the users of the system and their authorizations and access rights (col. 7, ll. 39 and 44). (3) The user profile database includes (i) an indication of whether the user has unrestricted or restricted network access from the embedded browser functionality; and (ii) if the user has restricted network access, then the user profile includes representations of all the linking information addressing of all the network resources allowed to the user (col. 7, ll. 35-42). (4) A user requests a document from an allowed server. Upon its return, the contents of the user profile are checked to determine if the user has unrestricted network access. If so, filtering is bypassed, but if not, the user’s network access is restricted, and the returned document is filtered to delete linking information from the display. (Col. 16, ll. 20-27). Stallings Reference (5) The hardware and software used in providing applications to a user can be viewed in a layered or hierarchical fashion…An application can be expressed in a programming language….If one were to develop an application program as a set of machine Appeal 2009-005793 Application 10/395,049 6 instructions that is completely responsible for controlling the computer hardware, one would be faced with an overwhelmingly complex task. To ease this task, a set of systems programs is provided. Some of these programs are referred to as utilities. These implement frequently used functions that assist in program creating, the management of files, and the control of I/O devices. A programmer will make use of these facilities in developing an application, and the application while it is running, will invoke the utilities to perform certain functions. The most important system program is the operating system. The operating system masks the detail of the hardware from the programmer and provides the programmer with a convenient interface for using the system. (Pg. 54). ANALYSIS We agree with the Examiner. In reviewing Appellants’ invention and the evidence presented, we find the distinction between whether instructions are “operating system instructions” or “application instructions” is immaterial in determining patentability. We look only at the function of the instruction and not at the label of the instruction. Application layer software is expressed in a programming language to reduce the “overwhelmingly complex task” of controlling computer hardware directly (FF 5). Ultimately, however, each instruction controls the computer hardware (id.). Additionally, we agree with the Examiner that the breadth of the recited claim is not commensurate with Appellants’ arguments. Claim 1 recites that operating system instructions related to the display of the external data are intercepted. Each browser instruction would be “translated” to operating system instructions to control hardware such as the display (FF 5). Moshfeghi teaches access and authorization to content is Appeal 2009-005793 Application 10/395,049 7 dependent on the user profile and as such, if access or authorization were not permitted, the requested data would not be displayed (FF 1-4). Therefore, we find Moshfeghi teaches or suggests a user’s request for data that was not authorized, for example, would be “intercepted” and the requested data would be prevented from being displayed. As a result, we find Moshfeghi teaches or suggests that “following retrieval of external data from a server, intercepting operation system instructions related to the display of the external data.” Moshfeghi teaches or suggests that execution of the instructions to retrieve requested data restricts delivery and display of the requested data (FF 1 and 4). Thus, Moshfeghi teaches or suggest restricting execution of instructions in accordance with the user profile. Accordingly, Appellants have not shown the Examiner erred in finding Moshfeghi teaches or suggests the invention as recited in claim 1 and commensurately recited in independent claims 10 and 18. Appellants did not present any separate arguments or evidence for dependent claims 2, 3, 5-9, 11, 13-17, and 19-21. Thus, Appellants have failed to persuade us of error in the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-3, 5-13, and 15-21 under 35 U.S.C. §103(a). ISSUE 2 35 U.S.C. § 103(a): claims 4 and 12 Appellants assert their invention is not obvious over Moshfeghi because his rejection is conclusory and not different from those set forth in Issue 1 (App. Br. 11). Appeal 2009-005793 Application 10/395,049 8 The Examiner finds it would have been an obvious variation to Moshfeghi’s teaching of an inclusion list and the inclusion list of what is restricted could be interpreted as an exclusion list (Ans. 22). Issue 2: Has the Examiner erred in concluding Moshfeghi teaches or suggests “the data-restriction information specifies web pages the user is prohibiting from requesting?” FURTHER FINDINGS OF FACT (FF) Moshfeghi Reference (6) In a preferred embodiment, the user profile records for a user a representation of all the URI (universal resource identifiers) of all allowed network resources (col. 9, ll. 6-10). In an alternative representation, the URIs listed are the absolute addresses of nodes that are not allowed (col. 9, ll. 50 and 51). ANALYSIS We find Moshfeghi teaches or suggests URIs that are not allowed are recorded in the user profile (FF 6). Thus, we find Appellants have not shown the Examiner erred in finding Moshfeghi teaches or suggests “the data-restriction information specifies web pages the user is prohibiting from requesting as recited in claims 4 and 12. Accordingly, Appellants have not shown the Examiner erred in rejecting the invention as recited in claims 4 and 12 for obviousness under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) over Moshfeghi. Appeal 2009-005793 Application 10/395,049 9 DECISION The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over Moshfeghi is affirmed. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv) (2009). AFFIRMED Vsh BINGHAM MCCUTCHEN LLP 2020 K STREET, NW WASHINGTON DC 20006